It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It would likely to be the same as the original box office that it really got, mainly, yes it's still Connery, but people were not used to seeing him act like the Bond in OHMSS (Vulnerable, human, especially him crying at the end), it would looked awkward to the eyes of the people at that time.
Because people at that time were not used to seeing Connery act that way.
Take a look at FYEO being sandwiched between two more successful entries like Moonraker and Octopussy, because people were not used to his portrayal in FYEO after seeing him played a campy Bond before. FYEO still made money, but not as successful as Moonraker or Octopussy.
Added to that was a convincing love interest, it wouldn't be well received today, if let's say a different actress took the role of Tracy, people would likely to find the romance unbelievable, because:
A.) Lack of Chemistry between Connery and whoever his leading lady would be.
B.) People would likely to find his leading lady to be unconvincing.
OHMSS became well received because of the convincing romance between Laz and Rigg, and people today easily accepted Lazenby because the portrayal was different from Connery's Bond.
I don't think the status of OHMSS would still be the same as today had it been with Connery.
People would likely to complain today like "yeah, it's Connery but the romance wasn't believable because of the lead actress not being convincing, I wished they find a much better actress to portray her, she's miscast, etc. Etc. Etc.
Typical like the complaints between Craig and Seydoux in SP.
I cannot imagine an already disillusioned Connery beginning shooting in the fall of '68 and still being on it as the summer of '69 began. Maintaining Connery in the role would've likely meant a truncated schedule and potentially a less epic OHMSS. Wouldn't matter how good the story and acting challenges were. Besides, Connery said during DAF's production he thought it was the best script yet, unless he was just trying to play nice.
Hunt insisted on casting Lazenby, which led to Rigg being cast, a game-changer for the series. He had Lazenby dubbed by a better actor, likely because of the acting deficiencies.
He insisted on keeping it close to Fleming. And he benefited from shooting in the era of "free love" (Piz Gloria) and "down" ending films (think Bonnie and Clyde).
As a gay man, he understood the delicious irony of Bond playing gay, and understood and controlled the camp of the Piz Gloria sequence. He hired another gay man, Simon Raven, to punch up the script, which gave us the poetry between Blofeld and Tracy.
Nobody complains about tonal shifts in OHMSS--Blofeld even says "I've taught you to love chickens"--because Hunt kept the stakes and tension for Bond high throughout.
So many stars aligned in OHMSS that were not fully appreciated at the time, but are now.
Great observations.
I don’t buy that conceit that people would have been turned off seeing Bond as written. By OHMSS, people would have more likely been receptive to Connery showing a more vulnerable side because he had earned that good will after five films.
Although I will say I think Lazenby's best acting in the film was Tracy's death.
Where George falters a bit is in the more mundane dialogue, and Connery definitely would have been a bit better at all that.